Post navigation

Losing Einhorn not the end of the world.

Much like their bullpen, the Mets’ deal with minority investor David Einhorn collapsed, and with it the $200 million infusion the financially strapped franchise was banking on to help them maintain as the Wilpons fight for their team in the fallout of the Ponzi scandal.

Naturally, there’s a difference of opinion of why the deal unraveled, with Einhorn claiming the Wilpons kept changing terms of the original agreement.

Reportedly, Einhorn was concerned about the language in the contract that would have allowed him to eventually assume ownership of the Mets in three to five years if the Wilpons didn’t repay the $200 million. Einhorn wanted a clear path to ownership and bypass the approval of baseball’s other owners.

Einhorn taking shots at the Wilpons won’t help him should he pursue ownership of another baseball franchise. This is a tight fraternity, and as unhappy as many fans are with the Wilpons, they have allies in Commissioner Bud Selig and other owners.

Fans might clamor for new ownership, but it isn’t happening any time soon.

The Mets, meanwhile, insist they aren’t in dire financial distress despite the lingering Ponzi scandal. In a statement released by the team, the Mets said they have the resources to cover the remainder of the 2011 season and to continue business.

It must be remembered it was the Wilpons who walked away from this deal, a signal they don’t believe they are desperate.

However, the Mets did not say whether business would include re-signing Jose Reyes or how active they might be in the free-agent market.

Reportedly, the Mets are still seeking investors, but will explore the piecemeal route rather than try to hook somebody for another $200 million. This might prove to be a quicker way to raise funds.

This is not good news for the Mets, but not the devastating news made out to be on talk radio. For years, the Mets’ problem has not been an inability or refusal to spend, but to spend wisely. All we have to look at is the Omar Minaya era, and it wasn’t much better before him.

It ultimately lies with the Wilpons, and they seemingly put a management plan in place with the hiring of general manager Sandy Alderson. It takes time for these things to develop, but there have been encouraging signs this season, including how the team is playing and chasing .500.

After the last two years, who would have projected that progress?

We were told this would be a rebuilding, learning year, and that is what has happened. There’s been some miserable baseball, but there’s been some sound play, including the Mets’ current streak.

I know Mets’ fans don’t want to hear about patience, but that’s the way it must be. For too long the Mets have gone for the quick fix that invariably put them in this current hole.

5 thoughts on “Losing Einhorn not the end of the world.”

I think it is reported the team loses $50M a year. Having Einhorn in the fold means you have real $$. I thought that made the odds of Jose coming back better.

Since the Wilpons walked away which means an ownership change is not a foregone conclusion we are left with the status quo. No one is at the stadium. They still have a lawsuit against them although one with a much lower liability. We still have little Jeffy(tm) who thinks he is the GM and an owner who takes gratuitous pot shots at his players.

This unfortunate turn of events makes me much more negative on the future of the team as the biggest lesson I have learned over the past few years is the owners are bald faced liars.

Will the Mets actually be able to piece together $200 million worth of minority owners by the end of the season? I don’t think so. The Wilpons probably won’t be ready for the off-season, so they could lose out on Reyes or Fielder, if that was even a possibility to begin with. I think they have to work fast to get that money for this winter.

I feel so bad for Sandy Alderson right now. This may be his second straight winter in which he has had virtually no money to spend, and high expectations. Someone send him a card, maybe with a $20 bill for his boss.

dave (1): I never though there would be an ownership change, at least not unless they got hit for $1 billion in a suit, which won’t be the case anymore. Retaining Reyes might have been more likely with Einhorn’s money, but he had no say in it regardless. This is a rebuilding franchise and it wouldn’t surprise me if they did it with a new shortstop.-JD

Connor (2): I shed no tears for Alderson. He has a job, and a high-paying one at it, also. He signed on for this and knew there would be tough times in the beginning. …. They could get the $200 million, perhaps even more, by piecing it together. How big the pieces we don’t know, yet. They weren’t going to spend much this winter anyway, and Alderson is already on the record saying such. Fielder was never going to happen. Reyes still might, but I’m not holding out for that.-JD